Back to [Archive] Post-review discussions

[OBG] Opposite selective pressures on stature and intelligence across populations
This paper is good. I would recommend that it be accepted with minor changes. A few points:

1. The wording is sometimes awkward. I've attached a revised version of the paper with various suggestions for improvement that the author can accept or reject as he sees fit.

2. One of the findings of this paper is that the geographic distribution of height-increasing alleles inversely mirrors the geographic distribution of intelligence-enhancing alleles. Yet there is no mention of this point in the introduction. Why? The reader gets the impression that this was a surprise finding that came out of nowhere. Even if this were the case, there should be some mention in the introduction.

3. The author uses the word "average" in the paper with reference to height. Is this average the mean or the median?

4. The use of the word "race" is problematic. Let me play the devil's advocate here. Since the data come from the core areas of the three major continental races (Europe, East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa), one could argue that the author is trying to make these three groups seem more divergent and non-overlapping than they really are. This isn't the author's aim, but that sort of criticism could be made. I also have a problem with the statement that East Asians and Amerindians are "very" similar genetically. The word "very" seems to me both unnecessary and debatable.

5. The discussion about the Pygmies is interesting, but I'm puzzled by the statement that alleles for height reduction evolved independently in "various Pygmy groups." I get the impression that the author is referring not only to the Pygmies of Central Africa but also to various unrelated Negrito groups in Southeast Asia (Andaman Islanders, Semang, Aeta). Is this the case?
This paper is good. I would recommend that it be accepted with minor changes. A few points:

Thanks for your thorough and speedy review.
1) I have accepted most of your changes.
2)I've added this to the introduction: No specific a priori hypotheses on the evolutionary link between height and intelligence were formulated.
3) This is the mean
4)It cannot be my aim as I didn't cherry pick the populations. Instead, these were the populations available on 1000 Genomes and Alfred. The populations do not come only from the core areas but from all parts of different continents (South and north Europe; South and North America, West and East Africa, etc.).
5) No, I am referring only to the African Pygmy groups. I used the plural as there are several groups, and in the Alfred dataset there are Mbuti and Biaka pygmies, which are separate groups.

I have uploaded the final revision. We now have 3 reviewers(PF, Meng Hu and Chuck) recommending publication.
When Peter Frost acknowledges the changes above, then publication can proceed.
I carefully read the corrected manuscript last night. I noticed a few minor errors and have made suggestions for improvement in the attached document. I don't believe in correcting a manuscript ad infinitum, but I think it would be worthwhile to make these minor changes.

I've had second thoughts about replacing "opposite" with "opposing." The term "opposing selection pressures" creates the impression that they are acting against each other, as in a dynamic equilibrium. But that really isn't the case here. There is some evidence of linkage between stature and intelligence, but this linkage favors selection pressures that run in the same direction (as the author notes). So the word "opposing" would just confuse the reader.

I have no further criticisms of this paper and I recommend approval.
Uploaded the final version.
A slight edit of the paper is attached.
I corrected the typos that Chuck has indicated. Attached is the updated version. 2 reviewers (Meng Hu and Chuck) have approved publication, if GM approves it too, this paper can be published.
Files are attached.

It's ready for publishing, but please check it one last time for typos, and make sure that the references are all in the same style. Looks better that way.
I confirm the paper is ready for publication.